Demon deal, or deal with a demon?

[KeithL]

I watched the events of last week unfold with a kind of fascinated horror. And they rather reminded me of an old Irish folk song, which I'm sure you've all heard of.. but you may have some alternative words!

A Lillibulero for 2017

There was an old prophecy found in a bog
Lillibullero bullen a la
The country'd be ruled by an ass and a dog
Lillibullero bullen a la
Now this prophecy is all come to pass
Lillibullero bullen a la
But who's the dog and who is the ass?
Lillibullero bullen a la

Appropriate? Timely? Words like back, come, behind, and bite leap into my mind! With no actual deal with the DUP, the events of this last week can only return, when the DUP decides to flex its muscles again. The big question is, what then? It seems to me that Northern Ireland is the rock on which Brexit will founder. The province's own issues have been nothing but intractable since 1922; and a source of violence and ongoing troubles for most of my lifetime. I can well remember the Belfast to Dublin railway line being regularly blown up by the IRA in the 1950s, and of course we all remember the troubles that flared up in 1969. The mindset behind those troubles has not gone away; behind the facade of calm and progress, it still festers on. The DUP say they don't want to be in the Single Market or the Customs Union; yet Northern Ireland as a whole voted to Remain. The DUP demands that the border with Eire remains open and unrestricted, yet by vetoing the agreement last weekend, they risked precipitating the very situation that will mandate a hard border: walking away without a deal. They demand that all of the UK has exactly the same deal as Northern Ireland, so they effectively hold the whole of the UK to ransom, regardless of what e.g. Scots want, what England wants, and what could solve the border issue. One could be forgiven for thinking that what they really want is a return to the gun and the bomb - and it is worth noting that the original Ulster Volunteer Force came into being in 1912-13 as a paramilitary force with the objective of forcing union with Britain on the whole of Ireland, intact some time before the IRA came into being.

Every time I consider the issues with NI, I can only wonder even more vehemently why such issues were not evaluated BEFORE the referendum; yet, just as there has been no impact assessment of Brexit on our industries, this issue was just brushed under the carpet, and blind faith took over. "Never mind, it'll be alright on the night" and the Leavers harking back to "the Dunkirk Spirit" is a long way from being a professional approach to such an important and critical, effectively constitutional change. One can be forgiven for thinking that the British have truly lost their marbles with the whole conduct since Cameron promised and raced to enact what must be the stupidest referendum in anyone's history.

[Grumpy Hec]

Re: Demon deal, or deal with a demon?

Superbly put sir!!

A steaming pile of incompetence, hubris and a total absence of planning or any meaningful thought process at all.

Hec

[Jim Ford]

Re: Demon deal, or deal with a demon?

I see that Stephen Hawking is trying to block Jeremy 'Cockney Rhyming Slang' from privatising the NHS by stealth.

Jim

[DavyG]

Re: Demon deal, or deal with a demon?

Had the British public realised that the Government had made no plans for a Yes vote, I suspect the result may have been different.

I remain sceptical that Brexit will actually take place as I doubt many in Westminster want it to happen.

I would not be surprised if we saw another General Election next year with one, or more, party running on a Remain ticket.

Dave

[KeithL]

Re: Demon deal, or deal with a demon?

What shocks me still is that some, supposedly intelligent, people think Brexit a good idea, even AFTER Davis's admission. However, I'm a member of Norwich Engineering Society, and I have yet to find anyone there who is other than dismayed by it; the people who seem keenest on it are those who have worked in insurance or banking,solicitors, that sort of thing. Whether they don't realise the potential effect on manufacturing, or just don't care, I can't work out.

I've tried pointing out how vulnerable our motor industry is in the face of Chinese competition: how do we, with an output of 1.72 million cars 2015-16 compete with a Chinese motor industry that built 24 million cars in the same year?

And this question: why would Toyota in Nottingham ship their cars all the way to China merely to compete with their own factory already in China, and probably selling the same cars at half the cost?

Leavers that I've met just dismiss anything like this as "just doom and gloom"; reality doesn't come into it.

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: Demon deal, or deal with a demon?

There are people making a LOT of money out of this fiasco...

With each news round the "government" looks more and more incompetent.

The saddest revelation in all of this is the levels of Bigotry that has been exposed throughout the UK.

Regardless of a persons position, the lack of understanding of reality in favour of adoption of the rhetoric of a "side" is seriously concerning to anyone watching the way people are manipulated.

There's a very old adage "Truth is the first casualty of war". So much Fake News and Alternative Facts have been used in ways far more effectively than any previous propaganda campaigns.

[Grumpy Hec]

Re: Demon deal, or deal with a demon?

I see that Stephen Hawking is trying to block Jeremy 'Cockney Rhyming Slang' from privatising the NHS by stealth.

Jim

I have long held the belief that the ultimate goal of the Tory party is to privatise the NHS. The ongoing mismanagement, so my theory goes, is to create such a mess that they have an excuse for going fully, or very nearly fully, private. It is a classic ploy. Each policy/tactical change is badged a much needed improvement which will deliver increased efficiency (or to put it in plain English budget reductions) and improved patient care. None of them work of course and the debacle increases until it gets to such a state that privatisation can be presented, with all the now familiar lies and deceit we expect from the increasingly influential right of the Tory party, as the best way forward. It's a carefully orchestrated long game.

Either that or they are simply incompetent.

It's one of those.

Both, as individual possibilities, are supported by the ongoing presence of Jeremy "Cockney Rhyming Slang". Why else would you have such a total waste of oxygen in any role other than toilet cleaner.

Hec

[DerekW]

Re: Demon deal, or deal with a demon?

The process brought in by Nye Bevan is not the only way to run a health service. The big issue is that other ways of funding health care as practised in France and Germany are not considered.

The actual amount of privatisation that has been carried out is a small percentage of the whole - and I believe the largest amount was carried out pre 2009.

Perhaps the biggest amount of damage is that done by the BMA in looking after their members, do you remember the phrase "stuffing their mouths with gold".

[KeithL]

Re: Demon deal, or deal with a demon?

I have long held the belief that the ultimate goal of the Tory party is to privatise the NHS. The ongoing mismanagement, so my theory goes, is to create such a mess that they have an excuse for going fully, or very nearly fully, private. It is a classic ploy. Each policy/tactical change is badged a much needed improvement which will deliver increased efficiency (or to put it in plain English budget reductions) and improved patient care. None of them work of course and the debacle increases until it gets to such a state that privatisation can be presented, with all the now familiar lies and deceit we expect from the increasingly influential right of the Tory party, as the best way forward. It's a carefully orchestrated long game.

Either that or they are simply incompetent.

It's one of those.

Both, as individual possibilities, are supported by the ongoing presence of Jeremy "Cockney Rhyming Slang". Why else would you have such a total waste of oxygen in any role other than toilet cleaner.

Hec

Forty years ago, the Conservatives were a very different party to what carries the name today, IMV. Thatcher swerved it to the right, and worse, got rid of the people, like James Pryor, who went into Parliament to serve the country, replacing them with career politicians. I can't bring myself to vote for today's lot; they are old-style reactionary Tories not inclusive Disraeli-esque Conservatives. The stupid thing is using the NHS as a political toy. It makes very good economic sense to have good NHS so that people who are ill are as little load on society and commerce as possible, by getting them back to work efficiently and quickly. Damaging the NHS damages the economy. But ideology trumps common sense every time. On the other hand, look at health "care" in the States. I don;t know how much improvement Obama made, but a third of Americans had no healthcare. I suppose if you do what Adam Smith suggested, and let the sick, infirm, elderly just die from lack of any sort of support, well, it's cheap to bury them. But the wealthy in the USA get good healthcare - however, you can't run an economy with only the rich.

Derek W thinks the French and German models work well. Yes, but how do you change to them? The German model is based on quite a heavy load on companies; overhead costs here are too high already - along with energy costs - so a system like Germany has would make matters much worse. The German system was brought into being by Bismarck around 1884; and he was no socialist, merely a man who understood what was needed to ensure that his country was well-placed to compete commercially. We have never had such a leader, and to this day, I do not believe that our leaders feel any need to even consider industry. It's nasty and dirty, making things, isn't it? So much more gentlemanly to make money from money. And that's what counts in Britain: being a 'gentleman'.

I have long thought that we are heading back to a Georgian economy. To do that, we can't stay in the EU. Once we are out of it, mark my words, a Georgian style economy is what we will get.

[Jim Ford]

Re: Demon deal, or deal with a demon?

The process brought in by Nye Bevan is not the only way to run a health service.

Yes but Jeremy 'Cockney Rhyming Slang' was a joint author of a paper advocating United States style health care. He's setting our NHS up to fail.

You can't make a privatised health service without breaking few accident and emergency services - which is happening right in front of us!

Jim

[Grumpy Hec]

Re: Demon deal, or deal with a demon?

The process brought in by Nye Bevan is not the only way to run a health service. The big issue is that other ways of funding health care as practised in France and Germany are not considered.
.

Agreed, the NHS is not the only way to run a health care system. However if someone has a better alternative a process of debate HAS to be gone through. That should include the following steps:-
> Demonstrate what is wrong with the current system with detail and evidence
> Demonstrate why an alternative system is better with detail and evidence
> In both cases the evidence must include financial aspects, is it affordable long term, quality of patient care, how it links to social care etc. etc.
>A proper informed debate can then take place (unlikely in this country given recent experience)
> If the alternative is proven to be better then a fully worked up plan should be prepared and presented with all the many complicated aspects dealt with in an open manner ( again unlikely in this country given recent and ongoing experience)
> Discuss, amend and agree plan.
> Implement plan
> Enjoy improved health care from cradle to grave

This of course will not happen.


Hec

[Jim Ford]

Re: Demon deal, or deal with a demon?

Derek W thinks the French and German models work well.

My partner is German and she says that the NHS is better in many respects.

In Hamburg where she was brought up, doctors don't have surgeries like we have. You visit the doctor's home. Also, you need to pay the doctor up-front when you get treated, and claim back later. This tends to inhibit people from seeking treatment.

Jim

[Grumpy Hec]

Re: Demon deal, or deal with a demon?

There are people making a LOT of money out of this fiasco...

With each news round the "government" looks more and more incompetent.

The saddest revelation in all of this is the levels of Bigotry that has been exposed throughout the UK.

Regardless of a persons position, the lack of understanding of reality in favour of adoption of the rhetoric of a "side" is seriously concerning to anyone watching the way people are manipulated.

There's a very old adage "Truth is the first casualty of war". So much Fake News and Alternative Facts have been used in ways far more effectively than any previous propaganda campaigns.

Incompetent - totally agree - this is evidential based on what we see almost daily.

Bigotry - sadly I have to agree. I am ashamed of the way we now present ourselves to the world as narrow minded, unwelcoming bigots. That can only serve us badly going forward and accelerate our already diminishing influence in the world.

Alternative facts - expanding that to outright deceit and the mind bending distortion of facts to present a case that is the exact opposite of what those same facts actually present. All presented in a repetitious way via social media and some mainstream outlets such that people accept it as the truth. The lack of questioning by so many people is especially distressing to me and, in my opinion, part of the reason why we are in such a mess.

Of course when you do question or express another view you are liable to be branded as undemocratic or in some cases unpatriotic.

How dare they.

I have directly experienced this and fully expect to again. This extreme polarisation and division will, I fear, be with us for some time. My opinion of those people and groups that have created this is unprintable.

Hec

[pdk42]

Re: Demon deal, or deal with a demon?

Back to OP's point - is the deal with Brussels a good deal or not?

Well, it's worth pointing out that it's just the prelude to a much bigger deal that needs making. Even on its own narrow terms though, I don't think we can answer that yet because right now the agreement is a fudge:

- The divorce bill total is based on future spending commitments that will not be known until several years down the road. I suspect we'll be sending money to the EU in large quantities for at least another 10 years and with a much longer tail to cover pension liabilities.

- The Irish question is framed in words that are open to interpretation as the reader wants, which at some point will bite us. Clearly the Irish Government and the DUP think it means different things.

- The position on EU nationals in the UK (and UK nationals in the EU) is more clear, but the implications are not well-enough publicised and I suspect will raise a few eyebrows. For example, the rights of family members to be re-united with EU nationals living in Britain at the formal leave date are quite wide. I'm sure many of those who voted leave in the assumption that immigration would be curtailed will be disappointed.

- "Regulatory Alignment" are again fudge words that can be interpreted many ways. I suspect that it'll mean closer alignment than some might like.

- ECJ continuation for longer.

It seems to me that we're definitely heading for a soft Brexit - which as a remainer I definitely prefer to the hard alternative. However, the risk is that we end up with most of the cost, policies and rules but lose a seat at the table when the rules and policies are agreed. We had a very good deal with the EU as it was (full membership, full voting and veto rights, no need to use Euro or be part of ECB, opt-outs on many policies, not in Shengen etc).

The whole situation is sad, chaotic, damaging, divisive and totally unecessary. Farage and Cameron have damaged our country more than most realise.

[KeithL]

Re: Demon deal, or deal with a demon?

Back to OP's point - is the deal with Brussels a good deal or not?

It seems to me that we're definitely heading for a soft Brexit - which as a remainer I definitely prefer to the hard alternative. However, the risk is that we end up with most of the cost, policies and rules but lose a seat at the table when the rules and policies are agreed. We had a very good deal with the EU as it was (full membership, full voting and veto rights, no need to use Euro or be part of ECB, opt-outs on many policies, not in Shengen etc).

The whole situation is sad, chaotic, damaging, divisive and totally unecessary. Farage and Cameron have damaged our country more than most realise.

Exactly. If you analyze Brexit logically, it's clear how ridiculous the claims are; and you don't need to be an economist to work out the effect.

Why did we join the EEC in the first place? Because our economy was going down the tubes, and Britain was"the sick man of Europe" - yet Brexiteers claim to want to go back to the "Utopia" that we had in the 70s prior to joining. If we hadn't joined the EEC, today we would not have a car industry, and probably no aviation industry either. The EU has nothing to do with why we have lost industries, yet Brexiteers blame it for all of our ills (even the weather, I reckon, some of them!)

One of the reasons, I feel, is that many Brits are still fighting WW2 in their mind; they can't let it go, and see it some kind of bizarre golden age - the "Dunkirk spirit" and all that - instead of looking forwards and considering what we need to do to best face up to the challenges coming as countries like India and China become the new world powers, commercially and militarily. Having once had an empire does not mean that the world owes us a living, nor that it should look up to us, regard us as special; we are just a third-rate power that has allowed itself to decline far more than it need have done, and being part of the world's biggest trading bloc is by far our best hope for the future. And now were are flushing that hope away, probably for ever.

EDIT: incidentally, the ECJ is necessary to arbitrate in any trading disputes; you can't have any national court doing so. If we trade under WTO rules, there is again a supranational court for arbitration.